From Iran to China: Which governments banned social media and why

On Monday (8 September), Nepal descended into bedlam after the government abruptly blocked 26 popular social media platforms—including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, and X—for failing to comply with new registration rules requiring local offices and grievance mechanisms. 

What began as peaceful demonstrations by young protesters, many from Gen Z, quickly escalated. Students, freelancers, and activists argued the ban cut them off from vital tools necessary to continue education, work, and communication. 

Clashes with police, who used tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition, left nearly 19 people dead (as of writing this piece) and over a hundred injured. Facing public outrage and international condemnation, the government restored access by Tuesday. Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli and several other cabinet members resigned, and officials pledged compensation and a full investigation.

The events in Nepal present a global dilemma: governments everywhere are grappling with how to regulate social media platforms that now shape politics, culture, and the economy. Nepal's protests may have been unusually deadly, but the underlying tensions are hardly unique.

Similar unrest has erupted elsewhere when governments tried to restrict social media. 

In Sri Lanka during the 2022 economic crisis, authorities blocked Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube, and TikTok in an attempt to curb mobilisation of protesters. Rather than calming the situation, these restrictions heightened public anger, as citizens found ways to bypass the bans and continued to organise demonstrations across the country. 

Similarly, in Iran during the 2019 "Bloody November" protests, the government implemented a near-total internet shutdown, blocking Instagram, WhatsApp, and Telegram. This was part of a broader crackdown in which over 300 protesters were reportedly killed while attempting to resist fuel price hikes. 

Despite these examples, bans and restrictions on social media continue in various parts of the world. 

In India, authorities have introduced some of the most stringent digital rules in the world. Since 2021, companies such as Meta, Google, and X have been required to appoint grievance officers in the country and respond quickly to government takedown requests. Officials claim these measures are necessary to fight misinformation and hate speech, but critics argue that the laws encourage censorship and weaken privacy protections. 

WhatsApp has challenged the rules in court, warning that breaking encryption to trace messages undermines user rights. 

India has also gone beyond regulation by imposing outright bans—most notably, it banned TikTok and dozens of other Chinese apps in June 2020, citing national security and data privacy concerns after border clashes with China. The ban remains in place today, cutting off one of the world's biggest markets from the platform. 

Also, Indian authorities temporarily banned social media, including Facebook and WhatsApp, in Kashmir back in April 2017. They cited misuse of these sites by 'anti-government elements' to incite violence as the reasoning behind such action. The one-month ban drew flaks from different quarters. 

Pakistan, too, has a history of restricting access to platforms. YouTube was banned for four years between 2012 and 2016, while TikTok has faced repeated suspensions over content deemed "immoral." In early 2024, access to X was blocked on national security grounds. These bans tend to come and go, often leaving ordinary users and small businesses in limbo while the government asserts its authority. 

In authoritarian contexts, restrictions go even further. 

Iran has long blocked most Western platforms, promoting state-monitored alternatives that give authorities greater control over online activity. China operates the most extensive digital wall of all: Facebook, YouTube, and X are banned outright, replaced by domestic giants like WeChat and Weibo, which operate under heavy state surveillance.  

Turkey, meanwhile, allows major platforms to operate but under strict control—forcing them to appoint local representatives, comply with censorship orders, and occasionally throttling access during political crises. 

These models show how censorship can be entrenched, turning social media into extensions of government power.

Even in Western democracies, where blanket bans are rare, the debate continues. The European Union's Digital Services Act requires large platforms to remove harmful content swiftly or face steep fines, while in the United States, companies are under pressure to curb disinformation, election interference, and extremist propaganda. 

The question there is less about access and more about accountability—how far should platforms go in moderating speech without infringing on freedom of expression? 

Bangladesh, meanwhile, sits somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. Over the past decade, the government has occasionally moved to restrict access to social media during moments of crisis. 

In 2015, Facebook and messaging apps like Viber and WhatsApp were blocked for 22 days after security fears surrounding war crimes verdicts and political unrest. Similar shutdowns have occurred at other flashpoints, often justified in the name of preventing violence or maintaining order. 

Most recently, during the July 2024 student-led uprising, the authorities again restricted Facebook and other platforms multiple times as protests against the government spread nationwide. 

To conclude, it is often seen that social media platforms often refuse to comply with local laws owing to the complex nature of national and international regulations, leading to frequent friction with governments around the world. For example, the root of all these tensions in Nepal—namely, the new registration requirement—still exists, demonstrating another instance of non-compliance.